Marvel Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 (edited) Didn't see the 3D version, but the 2D was excellent. Great pairing of all the actors. Bruce Edited October 4, 2015 by Marvel 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schu Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 I thought it was little more than "Hollywood Lite". No a bad movie to be sure, well crafted and visually beautiful... just nothing to sink my teeth into and it's rather Formulaic. The only thing missing was a forlorn wife, child and dog waiting intently for Watney's triumphant return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DizRotus Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 (edited) Bruce- Did you read the book? My son and nephew rave about it. I plan to read the book and see the film. On a related topic. If we're truly planning to send humans on a one-way 4 year journey to Mars, seems to me that living on the Moon for a few months first is a necessary prelude. Edited October 4, 2015 by DizRotus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nismo Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Ridley Scott... Check. Sci-Fi... Check.. Going to Mars... Check. Movie based on the book by Andy Weir...Check. Matt Damon. No thank you. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Matt Damon. I don't mind Matt Damon, I was telling the wife about this movie it does look good. Thanks for the review. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schu Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 by all means see it. there are FAR WORSE things to see out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted October 4, 2015 Author Share Posted October 4, 2015 Schu, did you see it already? Some great humor, nothing outlandish... Just a good solid film. Neil, I think I will now read the book. I think Damon did a great job. Up next is Bridge of Spies... Bruce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nismo Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 In a different thread I posted about the talents of composer Harry Gregson-Williams who created iconic & unforgettable the scores for the Metal Gear series. Turns out Harry Gregson-Williams also did the score for The Martian. I'm sure the score was excellent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted October 4, 2015 Author Share Posted October 4, 2015 Nismo... The music was great. I'm not big on most theater audio, and enjoy soundtracks more at home. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nismo Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Nismo... The music was great. I'm not big on most theater audio, and enjoy soundtracks more at home. Same here. I've only been to the Cinema once in the past 10+ years. Always a more enjoyable audio & visual experience at home. I do plan to check out a Theater that has a fully implemented Dolby Vision experience, complete with HDR & Dolby Atmos. http://www.dolby.com/us/en/platforms/dolby-cinema.html The new video standard that Dolby is establishing for the Cinema, is going to make 4K for the home obsolete. Well, 4K might eventually be ubiquitous for the home environment, much like 1080p is ubiquitous in today's world... but 1080p is not the selling point nor is it what makes a current display better than another. Likewise (with the new standard), 4K is not what will make the display better. 4K only adds more pixels. Dolby's new standard... does not rely on adding more pixels. It creates better pixels. For example, a 1080p display with Dolby's new standard will be superior to any current 4K display. Moving forward, 4K will be the standard... but it's not what will make the display great. Obsolete reference might have been a bit extreme, "unimportant" would be more accurate. Just one reason I'm holding off on 4K right now. In the near future, displays for the home will offer far more than what 4K currently offers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigStewMan Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 i saw it and enjoyed it. I can count on one hand the movies that i’ve seen in the past five years; but, i had friday off and was bored and movies before noon are only $6. I was entertained and that is why i go to the movies. i don’t look for reality in a flick…if i want reality i’ll go stand on the corner and watch real life. I will admit that they showed way too many previews of coming attractions. I saw the 3D version…not the reason i went to that showing. I was at the theatre and that movie was starting in 10 minutes so i went to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wvu80 Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 (edited) The new video standard that Dolby is establishing for the Cinema, is going to make 4K for the home obsolete. (snip, just wanted to reference the post) Thanks, Nismo. I kind of knew that 4K was reported to be obsolete already, but I never knew why. I hate it when the "standards" change. You never know what to buy that won't be out of date the minute you get it home, much like PC's were back in the 90's. I just upgraded to 5.1 a couple of years ago, I'm not yet ready to change. Does Dolby drive the industry? Or are they trying to drive the industry, much like Sony tried to do back in the old Betamax vs VHS tape days? I went all in for Betamax, and we all know how that turned out. Edited October 4, 2015 by wvu80 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigStewMan Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 I went all in for Betamax, and we all know how that turned out. you and me…i remember saying there are too many betas out there for this to go away. I think it was back in ’80 or 81’ that i bought a betamax “on sale” for $600…it was a top loader and was the size of a small suitcase. sounds silly now; but, probably relatively new (not sure when the first machines hit the market). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wvu80 Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 (edited) Oh, I remember, Big Stew. I analyzed both VHS and BM, the Betamax had better sound, better picture quality. Except for run time, it was better in every way, but who cares about run time? Apparently, everybody except me as Betamax quickly went the way of the Dodo, which was me. In '81 I went all-in for a then top of the line matched portable Sony Betamax camera and recorder rig for $1500. That's when I made $12,000 a year in my first real job out of college. I've been picking on the wrong side of audio technology ever since 1981. Thank goodness for Klipsch, so at least I did ONE thing right. Edited October 4, 2015 by wvu80 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nismo Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 The new video standard that Dolby is establishing for the Cinema, is going to make 4K for the home obsolete. (snip, just wanted to reference the post) Thanks, Nismo. I kind of knew that 4K was reported to be obsolete already, but I never knew why. I hate it when the "standards" change. You never know what to buy that won't be out of date the minute you get it home, much like PC's were back in the 90's. I just upgraded to 5.1 a couple of years ago, I'm not yet ready to change. Does Dolby drive the industry? Or are they trying to drive the industry, much like Sony tried to do back in the old Betamax vs VHS tape days? I went all in for Betamax, and we all know how that turned out. I've been planning on creating a thread to discuss the topic, it just covers a lot of ground from a technical aspect. Now that we are moving to 4K... we won't be going backwards, 4K will still be around. (just like now with everything 1080p, we won't be going back to 720p). But with today's current 4K displays, the selling point is about having "more pixels". The new standard does not rely on having "more pixels". I'll create a new thread for the topic later this week. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JL Sargent Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Matt Damon. No thank you. And who would of made a better Jason Bourne? Don't tell me Jermey Renner either, they knew not to even try that LOL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nismo Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 I do like his watch. Hamilton makes a quality piece. Very nice execution, gonna have to check it out (the watch, not the movie). lol 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Matt Damon. No thank you. And who would of made a better Jason Bourne? Don't tell me Jermey Renner either, they knew not to even try that LOL. Daman looked too young to be Bourne. If of course you read the books. Ludlum is my favorite spy thriller novelist and I never would have pictured Damon as Bourne, but even worse is Cruise as Reacher. If you have read even one Jack Reacher novel you would know how far away Cruise is from the character. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mungkiman Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 I don't see Tom Cruise movies. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Me neither. Especially when I hear of such a mis-cast as Jack Reacher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.